Original sin and the salvation of children

Vancouver, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

Merry Christmas!

Blogging is not generally a forum for a long or exhaustive presentation and I can write on similar topics in posts over time. Sunday after church, a discussion arose concerning the salvation of children, in other words non-adults, or persons that do not have the mental competence of an adult.

Erickson

Millard Erickson, a Baptist and Calvinist theologian within the Reformed tradition, explains the doctrine of original sin, based on Romans 5:12-19. Paul is arguing that death in the human race is the consequence of the sin of Adam. Erickson (1994: 636). This is universal and for all humankind. Erickson (1994: 636). Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling describe original sin as the state in which all human beings are born. The first humans became unrighteous because of sin against God. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 87). Erickson explains that infants begin life with a corrupted nature and guilt as a consequence of sin. Erickson (1994: 637). He cautiously reasons that they are not condemned to everlasting hell since they never reach a level of moral competence. Erickson (1994: 638). He writes that Jesus did not regard children as basically sinful and guilty as they were held out as examples of the type of people that would inherit the Kingdom of God, as in Matthew 18:3, 19:14. Erickson (1994: 638). Erickson deduces that children are not under God’s condemnation for sin until attaining an age of responsibility in moral and spiritual matters. Erickson (1994: 638). If the child dies he/she would be regenerated, as all believers need to be from his/her sinful state. The child will experience the same future existence as others that reached the age of moral responsibility and received salvation. Erickson (1994: 639).

For deceased children and those who are persons that are mentally deficient, it can be deduced that since they do not arrive at a reasonably competent point of consciously rejecting God, and reasonable understanding of the punishment for this rebellion, they may be regenerated by God and included within the culminated Kingdom of God after death. I would view this as reasonable speculation. Biblically persons appear to be judged for sins, which result from a sinful nature, and not for the sinful nature itself. In Revelation 20:12, those persons who are thrown into the lake of fire are judged for their deeds, and therefore persons are judged for deeds and not nature. Mounce states here that no one is so important to be immune from judgment, and no one is so unimportant to make judgment inappropriate. Mounce (1990: 365). A non-regenerated child or mentally deficient person would still have a corrupt nature unacceptable for God’s presence, but I speculate that a certain mental capacity is required to be everlastingly punished for sinful deeds.

Those within Reformed Covenant theology traditions, Presbyterians, Baptists, and others, often hold to concepts that children of believers are saved, if they die before the age of accountability. G.N.M. Collins writes that Reformed confessions believe in the possibility of infants being saved. Collins (1996: 560). There is the understanding that all elect children will be saved, despite the incapability of response. Collins (1996: 560). The children have no claim to salvation themselves, but receive the same sovereign grace as elected adults. Collins (1996: 560).

In contrast

I have previously presented this contrasting view within the comments of the Infant Baptism article. It could be stated within Reformed tradition, at least, that children and the mentally deficient outside of the New Covenant of Christ, could be everlastingly separated from God and judged according to deeds within their limited knowledge. Since children and all persons have corrupt natures, they do sin, and therefore could be everlastingly judged for these deeds and a nature which opposes God's, without having a competent understanding of God they are rejecting and the punishment they are receiving. It is possible that their punishment shall be at the level of limited understanding. I view this as a theological possibility that cannot be overlooked. But, the concept of everlasting separation in the New Testament appears to be one of God separating those from his presence that embraced their sinful nature and committed sinful deeds with a definite, competent and not largely deficient understanding. My personal deduction is that when persons with normal mental abilities reach adulthood, or the age of adult like mental competence, they are candidates for God’s judgment. This age of accountability could occur at an earlier age, but I reason that most persons are generally still rather childlike in the early teens.

COLLINS, G.N.M. (1996) ‘Infant Salvation’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/12/blue-santa.html

Thoughts on preference

Obidos Vila, Natal, Portugal (photo from trekearth.com)

Social rules exist within society. Philosopher Simon Blackburn describes society as a group of persons unified by a set of distinctive and systematic normative relations. Blackburn (1996: 355). Actions of one are perceived as meriting characteristic responses by others, and to be part of society is to be subject to the norms of interaction. Blackburn (1996: 355). Blackburn also writes there is such a thing as social philosophy, which is the attempt to understand and chart the basic categories by which to think about social aspects of human life. Blackburn (1996: 354). Jan Narveson explains that social philosophy is broadly the philosophy of society that includes social science, political philosophy, ethics, and law. Narveson (1996: 747).

Romans 12:2 informs the believer not to be conformed to the world but instead to be transformed by the renewing of the mind. Mounce writes that believers are not to conform themselves to the present age and to set their minds on heavenly and not earthly things. Mounce (1995: 232). Cranfield notes that there have been debates concerning the exact Greek meaning here but writes:

By rendering the second person plural passive present imperatives (in the former case preceded by a negative particle) by ‘stop allowing yourselves to be conformed’ and ‘continue’ to let yourselves be transformed’, respectfully, we have tried to bring out both the sense of the passive imperatives and also, in each case, the significance of the use of the present imperative. Christians still live in ‘this age’. Cranfield (1992: 296).

Christians are to reject the world-system and social norms that would violate the work of God’s Holy Spirit within their lives. This is not to state that all social norms should be rejected, but ones that interfere with God’s plans for an individual need to be abandoned. This allows for the intellectual possibility that Christians as individuals are at times to act contrary to social norms to be within God's will. I reason that Christians should be socially aware, and in some situations certain Christians should follow social norms, and other times certain Christians should not.

I am in my thirties and I have limited experience with dating and romance. I have been very busy working on four academic degrees, and with God’s help striving for academic excellence with some difficult topics including the problem of evil. My main academic discipline for the last three degrees has been theology, but Biblical studies (the major of my first degree) and philosophy (with my two British dissertation degrees) have been important disciplines for me to learn as well. One can see that these three disciplines have all been presented on this blog. Learning three academic disciplines and practical and empirical theology and statistics within theology has been very energy and time consuming, especially for one that has suffered with fatiguing sleep apnea and related surgeries and allergies, and eye problems and related surgeries. I have not been able to meet a compatible Christian young woman, and living within very secular Greater Vancouver has not helped my situation either. I therefore do not share the social experience of many of the women my age who have had relationships, been married, had children, and have perhaps been divorced. Although I consider myself a mature, but imperfect Christian, I am not socially at the same point as many Christian men my age that have experience that parallels the women I mentioned. As a result, I am not ready to, or do I have the desire to date or marry a near or middle-aged woman, and neither do I have any desire at this point to take someone’s pre-teen children or teenagers as my own. Perhaps if I was more romantically experienced I would be willing to be a stepfather, but at this point I am nowhere intellectually there. I also would still like to have my own children, and would consider a relationship with a young woman with a baby or toddler, or perhaps more than one small child. This is my preference, and I reason that God guided me to have such preference. Others can criticize me for my position, as my preference makes it more difficult to find a relationship, but they need to see things from my perspective as an individual Christian that has had a difficult and yet somewhat rewarding life through God’s direction. God’s plans for me and his guidance of my personal preference should always take precedence over social norms. I am a non-conformist, but do not embrace this to be anti-establishment, but I must conform to the life that God has in store for me, and not social norms, when necessary. One should not assume that social norms are what are best for me but should prayerfully look at my individual situation. I need to be open-minded and be willing to change preference if that is God’s will.

Two recent examples of persons that have contacted me via the Christian Café on my free days.

One, 35-40 years old with three teenagers. I do not view it as reasonable to expect me to go from a man with limited experience in his 30s to instant father of teenagers, even if I was attracted to this woman, which I was not.

Two, 40-45 years old, still married but seeking a divorce, with several of her own children and a 32 year old step-son. Again, I do not view this as a reasonable option and I was not attracted to this woman.

I should not be expected to socially follow norms just because of my age, and the fact that due to ageism many younger Christian women in their twenties do not want to date someone in his thirties, despite my commitment to Christ through study, which often seemingly appears unimportant to many. If I cannot find a woman compatible in her twenties to thirties with God’s help, the wise thing is not to conform to social pressure, but to simply stay single. I appreciate those who lovingly and with good intentions provide constructive criticism at church and such, but I must respectfully disagree when needed.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Social Philosophy’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 354. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Society’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 355. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

NARVESON, JAN. (1996) ‘Social Philosophy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.


Ilulissat, Greenland (photo from trekearth.com)

I do not personally relate to any of these situations!

Russ;)









http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/12/yesterdayi-threw-
my-common-sense-away.html

Social justice? Biblical wrong

Winter

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/08/episcopalians.secession.ap/ind
ex.html

I have no desire to make the topic of homosexuality a 'pet' discussion on this blog, but it is simply an issue that has come to mind recently through reading. I would not want someone who reads this post to think that I am just another Christian with a 'fundamentalist agenda'. I am not a fundamentalist and this is only my second article on this topic since 2004 when this blog began. This article is as much about Biblical integrity as homosexuality.

According to the above link and article, in California an Episcopal diocese voted Saturday to split with the national denomination over disagreements about the role of homosexuals in the church. Clergy and lay members of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, California voted 173-22 at an annual convention to remove all references to the national church from the diocese's constitution. Bishop John-David Schofield of the Fresno-based diocese stated:

That the Episcopal Church "has isolated itself from the overwhelming majority of Christendom and more specifically from the Anglican Communion by denying Biblical truth and walking apart from the historic Faith and Order."

I would agree with his view, at least in that Biblical truth has been denied. The reasons I side with his view are not because I am homophobic. I have never struggled with homosexuality, but have struggled with heterosexual desire as most men have. I have not had bad experiences with homosexuals, and humanly speaking do not necessarily consider them the worst type of persons. I do not have difficulty in being friendly with homosexuals and in no way hold any animosity. In a democracy, I can grant in toleration and not philosophical acceptance, that adult persons have the right to engage in homosexual acts. I can also grant that persons that struggle with homosexuality can be part of the Kingdom of God if elected by God, trusting in Christ, and repenting of sins, including homosexuality. I need to repent of my sins, and everyone that enters the Kingdom of God should repent as a sign of conversion. We are saved by election (Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:4-12) and regeneration (John 20:22-23, Acts 2) in Christ through his atoning and resurrection work, and do not necessarily repent of every single sin in life, but a sign of regeneration and belief from a person should be general repentance of sin. I can grant that people can struggle with sin for many years, but those in Christ should understand that works for God should follow faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-10, James 2). I personally have absolutely no desire to see anyone condemned, but I am intellectually obligated to share what I have found in my research over many years as a full-time student.

Although application of Biblical doctrines can vary from ancient times, the theological Scriptural teachings remain the same. Erickson makes it clear that Biblical doctrines may not necessarily be maintained precisely with the same form of expression as they were in Biblical times. Erickson (1994: 37). Although the expression may change, the essential teaching does not. Romans 1:26-27 discusses the issue of homosexuality. James D.G. Dunn states that Paul's attitude to homosexual practice is unambiguous. Dunn (1988: 74). For Paul this practice is a passion not worthy of respect and is unnatural. Dunn (1988: 74). Cranfield notes from the Biblical text an abandonment of natural intercourse with the opposite sex, for same sex intercourse. Cranfield writes that Paul is explaining that homosexual acts are contrary to nature and the creator's intention. Cranfield (1992: 35). It is perversion that is condemned. Cranfield (1992: 36). Mounce states that Paul views homosexual practice as shameful, unnatural, indecent, and a perversion. Mounce (1995: 82). Mounce traces it back to the Old Testament condemnation in Leviticus 18:22. Mounce (1995: 82-33). Mounce further writes that in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul notes that homosexual offenders will not be allowed to enter the Kingdom of God. Mounce (1995: 82-83). These offenders are 'soft ones' who allow themselves to be used as women. Mounce (1995: 83). Mounce makes the very reasonable deduction that there is no room for the allowance in the Christian Church of homosexual practice since it is clearly condemned in both Testaments. Mounce (1995: 82-83). There are clear Biblical teachings that homosexual practice is sin. Biblical Christianity requires a commitment to a contextual, grammatical, historical approach to Scripture. Secular philosopher, Simon Blackburn states that homosexuality has been the focus of discussions concerning the relation between law and morality and in contrast, morality and nature when it is accepted that homosexuality is not a moral issue. In this case issues relating to law, majority preference and prejudice are pondered. Blackburn (1996: 178).

Presiding Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, reasons they are guided by biblical teachings on social justice and tolerance to accept homosexual practice.

Christian advocates for accepting gay relationships, including Jefferts Schori, say they are guided by biblical teachings on social justice and tolerance. But Schofield and other conservatives believe Scripture bars same-sex relationships.

The above quote strikes me as a half truth. Yes, in Matthew 22:37-46 the second commandment is to love others as one loves self, and this is repeated in Mark 12:28-37 see also Luke 10: 25-28. Christians are to love those that have differing perspectives, tolerating them when needed, and should support the need for social justice, but logically and reasonably, if the Bible teaches both condemnation and love, both must exist without contradiction! To love homosexuals by accepting them into communion, baptism, marriage and membership would violate Biblical commandments and therefore should not take place. To hate or mistreat homosexuals or to ban them from attending Christian churches in order to hear the gospel message would be wrong and unloving. To attempt to force Christian views and values on homosexuals in a way that they lose basic democratic rights would also be unloving and should not be practiced by those within the Christian Church.

A major mistake many secularists, religionists and liberal Christians make is to assume that the love of God and Christ cancels out God's justice and condemnation of sin. This is untrue. Scripture explains that those that remain outside of Christ, and are not regenerated, stay in their sin. By freely sinning they face a spiritual existence in Hades after death (Luke 16, Revelation 20), and everlasting punishment after resurrection in the lake of fire (Revelation 20). The loving thing for a Christian to do is set aside personal feelings, desires and 21st Century secular notions for religious justice and realize that although homosexuals have at times been persecuted over the years that by giving them 'social justice' in regard to full acceptance as homosexuals and members within Christian churches, will in no way, shape, or form, overturn God's view of justice which he has explained in his Scripture through prophets, apostles, scribes, and of course Christ. The issue of acting homosexuals and their acceptance or rejection for church membership must be approached Biblically, objectively and reasonably and not with mainly emotional and intellectual responses conditioned by 21st Century religious thought. Scripture needs to be applied for the 21st Century, but this does not change the essential meaning of God's word, or God's nature that remains the same now as it was when the Biblical text was inspired.

Theologically, since human beings are corrupt in sin (Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:23, 6:23) it should not be a surprise that what seems perfectly natural for some is considered unnatural and corruption by God. For many heterosexual men, sexual activity outside of marriage would seem natural and pleasurable, and yet it breaks a Biblical commandment (Exodus 20:14), for others immoral lives would be normal and yet they stand outside of God's Kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Revelation 21:8). Fortunately, for those in Christ who are eventually resurrected, God provides a purified nature and sin is a thing of the past (1 Corinthians 15). The homosexual and all of us as sinners should not have sins accommodated for and need to be respectfully told the truth of God's holy approach to sin.

Christian churches need to reinforce the Biblical truths in regard to church membership and the taking of communion, baptism, and marriage. If this is not done and extreme (not necessarily moderate) liberals are allowed to gain membership and leadership positions, a church and/or denomination can be overrun by theological error. This can lead to legal disputes as well as churches leaving denominations. Personally, if need be, I would rather be in a house church with leadership and believers that are willing to take Scripture and primary Biblical doctrines seriously than to fellowship in the context of church meetings with those persons, however well-meaning and nice that are attempting to speak for God in the 21st Century by muting or presenting a reinterpretation of the Bible. Some Biblically based Christians may remain within a denomination that does not take the Bible seriously in order to provide a witness. This may be admirable in some cases, but my personal position is that I will not submit to unbiblical leadership within a Christian church, although with God's help I shall be loving and respectful to all those who have different views than I do. I also view it as a Christian witness to lovingly and respectfully point out Biblical error. I will submit to secular governments when needed that sanction homosexual relations as I live within Western democracy, but Christian denominations are to obey God's word or risk being Christian in name but not practice. I wish to be a member of a Christian church in practice.

The human nature needs to be regenerated and not accommodated in Christ.

For the Church to do otherwise, is to provide certain persons a false sense of security in regard to God's ultimate judgment of sin. I state this lovingly and with good intentions.

Russ:)

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Homosexuality', in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 177-178. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Blessed, but for how long?

Ontario (photo from trekearth.com)

At Christmas season the terms peace, joy, love, happiness, and blessed are used frequently verbally and in print. It is beyond the scope of this blog to thoroughly examine all these words Biblically, but I wish to look at one usage of the term blessed and then briefly compare the related idea of happiness to secular ideas. I will non-exhaustively look at the use of the term blessed in Matthew 5 which is according to Strong’s (3107) makarios and is a prolonged form of the poetical makar which means the same. Strong (1986: 60). The term is defined as meaning extremely blessed and by extension fortunate, well off, blessed, happy. Strong (1986: 60). Bauer defines the word as meaning blessed, fortunate, happy, usually in the sense of privileged recipient of divine favour. Bauer (1979: 486). Bauer explains that in Matthew 5: 3ff the translated idea of happiness to or hail to persons is favoured by some scholars. Bauer (1979: 486). Bauer reasons that this idea may be correct for the Aramaic original, but scarcely exhausts the context for Greek speaking Christians where the state of being blessed is brought about by ascension into heaven. Bauer (1979: 486).

Kissinger quotes Soren Kierkegaard from his 1847 work, What we Learn from the Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air. Kierkegaard notes that persons are to seek first God’s Kingdom which is the name of eternal (I would use the term everlasting) happiness which is promised to persons and before which the beauty and peace of nature do not compare. God’s Kingdom is righteousness and is to be sought first and shall endure forever. Kierkegaard (1847: 236). Kissinger writes when discussing the work of C.H. Dodd that the ideal Jesus expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, (which includes Matthew 5) would never be completely realized by humanity in this present world. Kissinger (1975: 82). H.L. Ellison writes that Matthew 5 expresses Beatitudes that are addressed to those who live lives beyond what the laws of the Hebrew Bible asked for and now live in grace. Ellison (1986: 1124).

It can be seen through the works of Strong and Bauer that the correct definition can be found in Matthew 5 by understanding what the word means in New Testament Greek, but the word’s context in each individual usage must be sought after for better understanding. Therefore, Bauer points out that a definition of the word in Matthew 5: 3ff would properly express the idea of happiness, but the context of the verses are deeper as happiness is directly related to Christian participation in the culminated Kingdom of God. Kierkegaard picks up on this point as well, and although Christians are to work for this type of blessed happiness in our present reality, it will not happen in this present realm. The establishment of perfected blessed happiness and the end of the problem of evil, my MPhil and PhD dissertation topics, are both dependent on the culmination of the Kingdom of God, which belongs to those who are regenerated and moved by God to accept salvation in Christ through his atoning and resurrection work.

Secular happiness in our present realm can be synonymous with being blessed from Matthew 5 in that persons can be extremely fortunate and happy and yet this secular concept of being blessed is very importantly different as it is without a Biblical hope in God’s culminated Kingdom. Secular based happiness is fleeting as it philosophically terminates in death. Any life that permanently terminates in death is not ultimately blessed and happy and therefore the historically based gospel offers blessed happiness that is everlasting and philosophically superior to secular happiness.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

KIERKEGAARD, SOREN (1847) 'What we Learn from the Lilies of the Field and the Birds of the Air', in The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, The Scarecrow Press, Inc, Metuchen, New Jersey.

KISSINGER, WARREN S. (1975) The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography, The Scarecrow Press, Inc, Metuchen, New Jersey.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

Theological credibility

Denmark (photo from trekearth.com)

There is snow on the ground in the Lower Mainland. Perhaps we shall have a white Christmas? A problem for me, as well as my good friend, and blog commenter Chucky, is attempting to drive from Maple Ridge to Vancouver for church this morning. The significant minority of poor drivers in the Lower Mainland become significantly scarier when it snows. This is a problem of evil!

Theological credibility

I have completed the rough draft of my PhD dissertation, Introduction. For the entire work, I now have approximately 78,000 words completed and I have read on-line that my University requirements are 70,000 to 100,000 words. I shall email my Introduction to my advisor, revise with his instructions and then work on a fairly short Conclusion.

I thought at this time I would discuss my theological credibility in writing the PhD work and look forward to receiving comments. As I have stated previously, I reason myself to be a moderate conservative theologically. I hold to Biblical fundamentals, but I would not be an extreme conservative fundamentalist. I do not hold to certain views often associated with fundamentalism, although I realize there are a wide range of Christian fundamentalists. This is not black and white terminology. However, I shall list some reasons why I distance myself from the term fundamentalist. I do not avoid listening to secular music, as that is all I mainly enjoy (progressive rock, jazz-fusion, art rock, classical). I do not primarily live in evangelical culture per say. I do not attempt to evaluate Scripture ‘woodenly’ but put emphasis on grammar, context, and background as is done by experts on Biblical books. I reason that Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and provides God’s doctrines for the church (2 Peter 3:14-16), but do not hold to a dictation theory of Scripture, or that there is such a thing as inspired copies or translations. Erickson explains the dictation theory is the teaching that God actually dictated the Bible to writers. Erickson (1994: 207). This would mean that the authors in Scripture provide no distinctive style. Erickson (1994: 207). I know from seven years of course work that there is overwhelming agreement among Biblical linguists that there are different writing styles present in the Bible. Thiessen comments that the Bible has been written by authors with various writing styles. Thiessen (1956: 106). God has maintained his word through the human production of a vast amount of copies of the original letters, those original letters having disappeared. God did not use a supernatural force field to protect the original documents from disintegration and copies were created of the originals. There has been opportunity for copying errors, but with the vast amount of copies extant, the Hebrew Bible and New Testament correctly present theology in line with God’s will. There is no compelling evidence of theological corruption of essential Biblical doctrines, within Scripture, and God has used vast amounts of copies from various regions of Asia and Europe to maintain orthodox Biblical doctrine. We have with Bibles that are produced by legitimate scholars, accurate copies of Scripture inspired by God through scribes.

I also do not necessarily insist on believing in a young earth, but I am open-minded concerning the subject. However, I am not at all convinced that human beings were ever anything other than human beings. I do not have a problem viewing Genesis as a religious and not scientific book and therefore reason that the majority of scientists could be correct that the universe and earth are billions of years old. Victor P. Hamilton in his commentary on the Pentateuch explains that although he reviews Genesis, he will leave the creation vs. evolution debate to the scientist rather than the Biblical scholar. Hamilton (1988: 12). I am in no way denying God as creator and that it is a theological issue, but understand that Genesis and the Bible are not science texts. Thiessen writes that the believer in the Bible does not need to fear geology as there is ample room within the Genesis account for all geological formations. Thiessen (1956: 169). Erickson notes that Archbishop James Ussher's deduction that creation took place at 4,000 B.C., making the world 6,000 years old, came prior to the development of modern geology. Erickson (1994: 380). From these geological methods has come a consensus that the earth is five to six billion years old. Erickson (1994: 380). Erickson tentatively favours the age-day theory which reasons that the Hebrew word yom is most frequently used to describe a twenty-four hour period, but can also be used to describe epochs or long periods of time. Erickson (1994: 381-382). Erickson speculates that in the context of Genesis, God created over epochs and long periods. Erickson (1994: 381). In Genesis 1, the existence of evening and morning is noted six times and this could support the cause of literal twenty-four hour days, but this is not a certainty. H.L. Ellison writes that the textual use of the order of evening and morning points towards a gradual development in the creation process. Ellison (1986: 115). Schultz and Smith explain that in Genesis 2:4 the term day represents an era in context, as the Lord is said to have made the earth and heavens in a day. Schultz and Smith (2001:15). Could the use of evening and morning figuratively represent eras of progress?

NASA, Astrophysicist Jonathan Keohane writes:

The evidence for a big bang having taken place about 15 to 20 billion years ago is overwhelming, so I naturally believe that it is the case.

However, if your real question is "why did the big bang happen in the first place?" then that ceases to be an astronomical question, but a religious one.

Some astronomers, who are religious, argue that the big bang theory confirms the existence of God and the basic elements of the creation story as told in the Bible. First came light, then the heavens, then the Earth ...

However, many other scientists do not. Scientists, like people in most any profession, have a vast diversity of religious beliefs. Some of us attend houses of worship, others do not. Some of us consider ourselves very religious, others consider ourselves staunch atheists. Just because we study astronomy does not mean we have any more agreement as to the “why'' questions than anyone else. Keohane, Jonathan (1997: 1).

I reason that my blog supporters with thekingpin68 and satire and theology are primarily moderate conservatives and moderate liberals. I have been told by my advisors in Wales that the University is secular and not conservative. Therefore, it can be reasoned that my University, as would be the case with almost all British Universities would feature mainly moderate and extreme liberals in a Religion and Theology department. How do I maintain my credibility while working within this department? Well, although I am willing to read what they tell me to read and work within their format and rules, I have been allowed to come to my own academic conclusions with Wales. This is very much appreciated. This was not the case at my brief stay at Manchester. I was told that if I wanted to pass I had to abandon the concept of God creating a world where the problem of evil existed. So, therefore a sovereignty theodicy would be out, and by my own choice, and with their ‘encouragement’, so was I!

My dissertation is more restricted in content format than is this blog, but within my work I have been able to state two essential views that I hold to within the context of the PhD dissertation. One, it must be stated that no theodicy is the remedy for the problem of evil. The remedy to the problem of evil comes through the atoning and resurrection work of Christ being applied to persons through God’s election of believers (Ephesians 1: 4-8, Romans 8: 28-30). God completes this process through the culminated Kingdom of God. Mounce (1990: 369-397). I have therefore maintained my theological credibility by holding to the gospel message within an academic dissertation, which is not primarily gospel focused. Two, I have been able to embed my sovereignty theodicy within my dissertation and this allows me to reason and speculate on how, to some degree, God works in his creation to bring it from its corrupt present state to the culminated Kingdom.

Interestingly, one of my advisors at Wales told me on more than one occasion that a North American PhD in Theology did not have the breadth to pass in the United Kingdom academic system. A retired theologian and dissertation reviewer in the United States for almost forty years, who now lives here in the Lower Mainland told me that my British dissertation would not pass at a North American seminary, as it did not have enough theological explanation. He seemed to prefer this blog.:) This difference in academic format is a demonstration of how dangerous academic politics can potentially be and I experienced this at Manchester!

ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

KEOHANE, JONATHAN, (1997) ‘Big Bang Theory’
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971108a.html

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

SCHULTZ SMAUEL J, AND GARY V. SMITH, (2001) Exploring the Old Testament, Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2007/11/shoot-uk-teacher-
say-protesters-great_4904.html